Anyone who doesn't think a military coup is on the minds of the right ...

[LuckyTheDog]

... should take a look at this group: http://oathkeepers.org.

These people are organizing active-duty military personnel to appoint themselves "guardians of the Constitution" with the goal of "returning" the U.S. to the "Constitutional Republic" that THEY believe "the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted."

In other words, they take it upon themselves to:

1) Decide what the Constitution means (the heck with the courts).

2) Decide which laws are appropriate (who needs Congress, anyway?); and

3) Decide which orders from the president are and are not legal -- based on their own criteria.

This is scary shit. On the surface, they could seem harmless to many people. The list of 10 order they will not obey seem reasonable enough. Few people would want the military to follow orders to deny jury trials to citizens, for example. But dig deeper. These folks are hard-core anti-government extremists masquerading as super patriots.

This article is a case in point: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/07/08/local-sheriffs-are-last-defense/

[jcarterhero]

1. More dirty tricks from the right

But what can you expect from them these days?

[Old and In the Way]

2. They are no different then the Honduran junta.

But let them try to make a show of force....I doubt they can muster a 1:10 disadvantage. If they want to try to kill the Constitution, let them reap the results of their treason.

[LuckyTheDog]

27. Right.

I GET the idea that the military should not obey illegal orders. But the military is NOT a co-equal branch of the government. Thus, the military has no business interpreting the meaning of the Constitution or organizing itself to act in a political way. None whatsoever.

The people do not need military “protectors” to step in and save them from themselves. The people can defend the republic without the help of colonels in mirrored sunglasses who decide to make themselves into the moral guardians of everybody else.

Movements like this always appear to be “well-meaning.” They always present themselves as the “honorable men” who will step in and rescue the “decadent” and deformed republic from the “dirty politicians.” But doing that is the role of civilians.

Organizing the military to take on the role of “putting things right” is a bad, bad, bad idea. This is the road to fascism.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. we had a coup about 46 years ago

the results unfold daily

[CoffeeCat]

4. Where in the hell were these wackaloons...

...when Bush was President?

Give me a frickin break...Obama causes the lovers of all things Constitutional--to come out of the woodwork? But
during Bush's eight-year nightmare, these people were justifying and rationalizing every unConstitutional thing
that Bush did--including spying on US citizens, eliminating Habeas Corpus, lying us into war, torturing, etc.

These stupid-ass hypocrites have no credibility.

They are fools.

[Regret My New Name]

7. The hypocrisy is what annoys me the most about these people..

I'm not too worried about these ass hats overthrowing the federal government though...

I'm more worried about the coup plans that don't have websites... Not saying there are any in motion or anything. Just that if they did exist then they probably wouldn't have a poorly made website.

[varelse]

5. “What would a constitutional sheriff have done in 1959?” Mack asked the crowd.

When the call came in to the Montgomery County, Ala., sheriff’s office that a black woman was refusing to move to the back of the bus – as required by law – the sheriff would have arrived on the scene and talked to Rosa Parks.

“Ma’am, what’s the problem,” a constitutional sheriff would have asked her, Mack said. Told she had taken an empty seat and just wanted to be left alone, the constitutional sheriff would have sat down next to her, ridden with her to her stop – and, once off, for good measure taken her into a whites-only restaurant so she could buy sandwiches for her and her husband.

He’d have then escorted her home, Mack said – asked if her husband was armed and could defend his family if anyone upset by what had happened came around and threatened them – and ordered extra patrols of the house.

“Remember, segregation wasn’t a tradition, it was the law of the land,” Mack said. “Rosa Parks taught us what you do with stupid laws.”

He seems to be saying that local sheriffs have a duty to support (or even enact) civil disobedience against "stupid" laws. This isn't a right wing concept. Or maybe I have misunderstood the op ed.

:shrug:

[Regret My New Name]

10. That makes sense with what they are trying to claim their 'cause' is...

Funny thing is that I bet most the people who support that site do not agree with the way the 'constitutional sheriff' acted...

Really though, the idea of people enforcing the constitution is an awesome idea. The problem is that these ass hats are claiming that's their goals because their guys didn't win. Which I'm sure I don't have to explain to anyone here. :P

[democrat2thecore]

13. He was praising Rosa Parks - They're not as "out there" as others I've seen -nt

[Kaleva]

6. I think you are reading much more into this then there is.

From the article you provided a link to:

"“What would a constitutional sheriff have done in 1959?” Mack asked the crowd.

When the call came in to the Montgomery County, Ala., sheriff’s office that a black woman was refusing to move to the back of the bus – as required by law – the sheriff would have arrived on the scene and talked to Rosa Parks.

“Ma’am, what’s the problem,” a constitutional sheriff would have asked her, Mack said. Told she had taken an empty seat and just wanted to be left alone, the constitutional sheriff would have sat down next to her, ridden with her to her stop – and, once off, for good measure taken her into a whites-only restaurant so she could buy sandwiches for her and her husband.

He’d have then escorted her home, Mack said – asked if her husband was armed and could defend his family if anyone upset by what had happened came around and threatened them – and ordered extra patrols of the house.

“Remember, segregation wasn’t a tradition, it was the law of the land,” Mack said. “Rosa Parks taught us what you do with stupid laws.”"

I don't see a problem with the above and it sure doesn't appear to be right wing to me.

[LuckyTheDog]

17. The ideal of the local sheriff...

... who takes matters into his own hands been an icon of the anti-government right wing for decades.

I am really worried when I read stuff like this:

"The domestic enemy he fights today is a federal government he says is bent on taking away people’s rights and freedoms.

"And who can fight the massive federal government?

"Your local sheriff, he said."

[Kaleva]

18. The Underground Railroad was done by people who...

took matters into their own hands.

[LuckyTheDog]

24. What we are talking about here...

... is much, much more sinister than you think.

The military is not a co-equal branch of government. It should not -- ever -- take it upon itself to act politically. The role of protecting Americans from "the politicians" belongs to the people themselves, not the military.

The military has absolutely no business organizing itself in this kind of way.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Stewart Rhodes - Ron Paulian, disabled vet.

No doubt he has issues, but he ought to be holding Bush-Cheney accountable for his situation.

[wroberts189]

9. But stealing elections was working out so good for them...

Until we caught on that is.

[sharesunited]

11. Shrink the military now before the generals become our masters.

[47of74]

12. Hopefully the FBI is keeping an eye on these ass clowns.

[lexanman]

14. umm

the FBI, CIA, DHS, NSA, etc would probably support these assclowns. Honduras is a fine lesson. These assclowns are entrenched in the highest levels on government, unfortunately/

[democrat2thecore]

15. No, that's what we were raising hell about

When the freepers made fun of DU and pointed to posts - they'd say crap like, "I hope the FBI is keeping an eye on these clowns!" If it's not good under Bush to "watch" the left, it's not good under Obama to "watch" the right. The First Amendment protects this speech - as disgusting as some of it might be. Speech that's not controversial doesn't need protecting - it's the freedom to talk shit (pardon me) that is at the core of our freedom of speech.

[FreakinDJ]

16. Bush did more to violate their oath then any Dem ever will

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

The Patriot Act II had a National Registry for ALL Firearms and the Patriot Act I allowed indifinit detention with secrit trials

[datasuspect]

19. i can see it now

returning, broken soldiers returning to christian redneckistan substituting "libruls and furriners" for "hajis."

i don't think the zip codes the recruiting offices serve have benefited much from the economy.

so then you have legions of PSTDed out and unemployed soldiers returning to the backwaters they used the military to get out of . . . and some unscrupulous rabble rousers who revel in historical error and rw wing propaganda pushing buttons.

wow, what a mess.

[galileoreloaded]

20. I am very interested in the replys here.

With one breath we du'ers decry the totalitarian corporate control of our government (read Patriot act, the recent healthcare debate), and in the next, decry another group that is pissed about the totalitarian corporate control of our government. After a quick search, it seems that this latter group in fact had a HUGE problem with Bush 1, Clinton, Bush2, and that has carried over to Obama.

Now, I am NO RW apologist, but I am starting to wonder if the issues fall predominately with the overly religious RW'ers, a shrinking minority, and the more hardcore lefty. Draw the argument to the fringe, and steamroll the middle.

Boy, keeping a good fight going sure does distract two disparate ideologies from keeping their eye on the ball. Machiavellian to be sure, but this is starting to stink.

If my car rolls over and is on fire, I would kiss every redneck Southern Baptist Conference delegate on the mouth for getting me out.

A think we should all check our premises, not change our ideology, but figure out where the truth really lies. I am sure to get heat for this, but it won't be the first time.

[LuckyTheDog]

25. I don't trust those guys. I don't believe what they say.

Any group that organizes military officers to take on a political role in American life is dangerous to freedom. The military has no business acting to "protect" us from those we elect and/or from the political process. This is the stuff of coups.

Sure, they invoke Rosa Parks. But do not be naive. These kinds groups ALWAYS present themselves as well-meaning. They always start from the premise that the republic has become tainted and that the "honorable men" must act to restore the nation to its rightful standing.

This group is just a bunch of soft-sell falangists.

[Fearless]

21. Then there was Bush's grandfather and the who FDR mess...

These things have happened countless times before. Think of it as evolution's way of weeding out the idiots. If they don't actually commit a crime, they will alienate themselves further from the status quo. They will lose any relevance they once had. And, as years pass they will die with a whimper.

[varelse]

22. The "About" page reveals a strong alignment with Ron Paul

About OathKeeper Founder Stewart Rhodes

Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump.

He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff.

Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.

Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and has written for The Warrior, the journal of Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College; for www.moreliberty.org; and for JPFO.

Stewart has appeared on many radio shows including G. Gordon Liddy, Alex Jones, The Power Hour, Deevy Kidd, Spy Chips author Katherine Albrecht, and many more.

Stewart was invited to speak at Stanford University on unlawful enemy combatant status, and teaches classes on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Here's his blog: http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/10/enemy-combatant-status-no-more.html

This group, and the founder, seem to be hard to pin down idealogically. They're more libertarian and strict constructionist (in other words, more "old school conservative" than neoconservative) in their views.

So yes, they fit the label "right wing" and are considerably more educated and intelligent than, say, Glen Beck zombies. That could make them more dangerous, but I still think we have more to fear from the neocons.

[Butch350]

23. This post wouldn't even be here...

if the POTUS was a white guy.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Uh, them and what army? The teabaggers? n/t